How many FT shots should Lebron have rec'd?

[Reality]

On foul by Bowen on final shot attempt.

NBA ref in training tells me that was not a continuation therefore LeBron would not have gotten 3 shots.
He says reason is Bron had not gathered ball for shot.  Was in process of gathering, but had not gathered.

[Lurker]

Compared with the way they called that game there was no way that was a continuation.  There was a play earlier where Parker did the same type of play and it was called a foul on the floor.

However also you have to consider that in the finals they will not call contact that incidental.  To call that a foul...and a continuation...would have been obscene.  The only thing it does now is give all the anti-winners (Spurs/Lakers/Bulls haters) more fuel to call this titled tainted. 

The refs were already giving the benefit of the doubt to the Cavs.  Manu is called for charging while LBJ is aggressive in creating contact.  As soon as James got his secong foul Duncan is called for the offensive foul on a questionable call.  Then James sits down with his 3rd and Duncan quickly gets called for "fouling" Z on his drive across the lane...compare with the style of play the Cavs were allowed when Duncan drove into the lane. 

[westkoast]

None.

The reason being is he did not try to go into the motion till he felt contact.  You are telling me with 3 more seconds on the clock Lebron wanted to shoot a shot 3 feet behind the 3 point line off balance?  He waited till he felt Bowen touch him then started to go into his motion.

Props to Lebron for not talking about it in the press conference afterwards.  I thought that was super classy of him to just say "no excuses I missed it"  He was clearly fouled but I would not say it was continuation.

[Reality]

None.
He was clearly fouled but I would not say it was continuation.

So a 1+1?

[westkoast]

None.
He was clearly fouled but I would not say it was continuation.

So a 1+1?

I thought they had a foul to give?  Or was I mistaken?

[rickortreat]

According to the announcer on ABS, it should have been a foul and a continuation.  As I saw it Bowen grabbed him prior to his being in motion to take the shot, but had the ref blown his whistle, by the time he did LeBron would have already released the shot, so a continuation play with 3 free-throws could have been called.

Considering it was an intentional foul behind the 3 point line- ostensibly to prevent him from shooting and making a 3 point shot, I would have given him the 3 free throws.

But this was about the only call all night that went against the Cavs, so you can hardly blame anyone but Cleveland for the loss.

[WayOutWest]

Had the foul been called it should have been a 1+1, not sure if they had a foul to give.  Bowen intentionally fouled LeBron and LeBron hadn't picked up the ball yet, it was not in the act of shooting.  I think LeBron actually took another dribble before raising up for the shot.

[JoMal]

The refs were already giving the benefit of the doubt to the Cavs.  Manu is called for charging while LBJ is aggressive in creating contact.  As soon as James got his secong foul Duncan is called for the offensive foul on a questionable call.  Then James sits down with his 3rd and Duncan quickly gets called for "fouling" Z on his drive across the lane...compare with the style of play the Cavs were allowed when Duncan drove into the lane. 

Total fouls called:

Cavs - 17
Spurs - 15

And this includes Gooden, the Cavs second best option, fouling out in 32 minutes. This, even though a total of only  32 fouls were called in this game. What the refs are doing is essentially ignoring the contact unless blatant.

Lurker, this constant, and completely unwarranted whining about the fouls being called in each series against the Spurs and ignoring everything else is really getting old. And, as shown from this, clearly and totally hypocritical.

Maybe, if this were actually a competitive series, you might focus on the Spurs lack of production FROM the foul line once they get there. A 9 for 16 shoot night won't cut it in a close game. Especially when ALL THOSE FOULS called on your poor, abused Spurs amounted to the Cavs shooting 11 for 15 from the line.

What, the Spurs shot more foul shots? Let's ignore that.

[Lurker]

The refs were already giving the benefit of the doubt to the Cavs.  Manu is called for charging while LBJ is aggressive in creating contact.  As soon as James got his secong foul Duncan is called for the offensive foul on a questionable call.  Then James sits down with his 3rd and Duncan quickly gets called for "fouling" Z on his drive across the lane...compare with the style of play the Cavs were allowed when Duncan drove into the lane. 

Total fouls called:

Cavs - 17
Spurs - 15

And this includes Gooden, the Cavs second best option, fouling out in 32 minutes. This, even though a total of only  32 fouls were called in this game. What the refs are doing is essentially ignoring the contact unless blatant.

Lurker, this constant, and completely unwarranted whining about the fouls being called in each series against the Spurs and ignoring everything else is really getting old. And, as shown from this, clearly and totally hypocritical.

Maybe, if this were actually a competitive series, you might focus on the Spurs lack of production FROM the foul line once they get there. A 9 for 16 shoot night won't cut it in a close game. Especially when ALL THOSE FOULS called on your poor, abused Spurs amounted to the Cavs shooting 11 for 15 from the line.

What, the Spurs shot more foul shots? Let's ignore that.

And maybe while you are at it you can ignore the intentional fouls at the end otherwise the Cavs would have had more FTs.   And less fouls.

Or maybe you could ignore the inconsistancy of what is an offensive foul on one end of the court negating a basket or and1 but giving the and1 on the other end of the court.  Even Van Gundy saw the inconsistancy in THAT!

Maybe you could get better reading comprehension and see that I didn't whine about the refs but pointed out that in the spirit of consistancy there shouldn't have been a whistle at the end.

Maybe if the Kings ever had a post presence you would understand watching a game where your big man is called for a touch foul in the lane while constantly trying to shoot with a couple players hanging on him.

All of my "whining" as you like to call it is targeted at CONSISTANCY.  And I don't care if you consistantly call touch fouls or go by the old "no blood, no foul" rule.  Just call the same game on both ends of the court.  Either call it an offensive foul EVERY time the offensive player initiates contact, a no-call, or a defensive foul.  But call it the same for all 10 players on the court.

[Skandery]

I'm going to chime in here, because frankly I had the same exact reaction to your post as JoMaL did, Lurker.  You're argument (and subsequent whining about inconsistency) for why the foul was not called on Bruce Bowen doesn't hold any water.  First you state that Bowen's foul was incidental -- lay off the crackpipe.  Bowen intentionally, not incidentally, fouled LeBron:  he intentionally grabbed LeBron around the waste with his arm to make sure the foul was on the floor.  Now you can argue that LeBron noticed this action and THEN went into a shooting motion so the foul would indeed be called on the floor, but you CANNOT argue that the foul was incidental, ticky tack, contact that was a no-call for the consistency of the game.  LeBron got fouled by Bowen, Cleveland Ball on the side was the right call in my book. 

Now as to your comment about Ginobili's offensive foul when Varejao was clearly not set while seemingly the same exact play with LeBron and Bowen was called a Blocking foul -- and you say Van Gundy noticed it.  Danny Crawford explained to Ginobili (and I read his lips and body language) why it was an offensive foul.  It was a charge NOT because Varejao was set but because Ginobili swung his off-arm elbow into Varejao's chest to try and create the contact before the release of the shot.  LeBron James didn't have any swinging motion of his off arm to get the shot off and his defender (Bowen) was not set, thereby -- Blocking foul.

Also I believe a missed and1 call went in the Spurs favor.  The one on Tony Parker which was committed by Drew Gooden (2nd or 3rd quarter).  They gave Tony a continuation call and free throws even though he was clearly in the middle of a spin move and hadn't even started attempting the shot--Van Gundy noticed that one, too, so did Mike Breen.  I believe this offset the foul later on in the game commited by Bowen on LeBron in which continuation was wrongly called.  By my count, that makes continuation mistakes 1-1.

The offensive foul on LeBron as he was posting up with 6 min. to go in the 2nd quarter was pure, unabashed, BS.  Much more "questionable" (using your word) as Duncan's offensive foul.  Bowen clearly flopped and had the Refs been calling that type of thing a foul -- Karl Malone wouldn't even rank in the NBA Top 50 in scoring, let alone 2nd all time.  Now then, the Refs realized they had just taken a dump on the court and made the obligatory makeup call on the Duncan foul when Zydrunas went across the middle.  It was a make-up call through and through, and I agree that I absolutely HATE makeup calls, but that's the culture the NBA has fostered ever since I've started watching it.  I think correcting your mistake then and there is better, lead official Crawford should've called a Ref council and overturned the foul on LeBron, until last night's game the Ref's had been good about doing this type of thing.  Still going back to the theme of this post, Cavs and Spurs were even 1-1. 

I don't think Cleveland fans have any right to say they were wronged.
I don't think San An fans have any right to say they were wronged. 

Mistakes were made but it was for all purposed called even, sometimes evenly BAD, but even nonetheless.  We know you're a diehard Spurs fan, Lurker, but let's maintain some semblance of objectivity for posterity's sake.  You're up 3-0, I think you can afford to.             

[westkoast]

Skand in regard to Tony Parker's And1....I believe the rule is that if you pick the ball up and do not bring it back down to dribble then it will be called continuation if you get fouled even during a spin move.  At least that is how I've seen them call it on many occasions.  That is part of the reason why some people are upset about the Bowen/Bron play at the end of the game.  People are arguing that since he never put the ball back down that it was a continuation play.  To me the difference between the plays was that Parker was already making his move when the contact came.  Whereas Lebron felt contact and then decided to go up for the shot.

[Skandery]

I thought one had to actually be in the middle of attempting a FG to get free-throws. 

You could be right about this but if you are and this is how the rule is applied then it should be changed.  I think had Parker been truly attempting a shot when the foul was made by Gooden, he would've had as much chance of it going in as a 3/4s court heave at the basket (and getting fouled from there is called on the floor whether ball has been picked up or not). 

[JoMal]

And maybe while you are at it you can ignore the intentional fouls at the end otherwise the Cavs would have had more FTs.   And less fouls.

Would YOU ignore them, if the other way around? You have never shown an inclination to, so let's cut that BS out right now.  

Or maybe you could ignore the inconsistancy of what is an offensive foul on one end of the court negating a basket or and1 but giving the and1 on the other end of the court.  Even Van Gundy saw the inconsistancy in THAT!

Please, of all people, you should never invoke a call about inconsistancy. Calls for consistancy regarding referreeing has never been highly noticed in any of your posts. As Skandery pointed out, why did you not mention Van Gundy's comments about the so-called continuation foul that favored Parker? Little things like that might help my reading comprehension that you so helpfully would like to improve.

Maybe you could get better reading comprehension and see that I didn't whine about the refs but pointed out that in the spirit of consistancy there shouldn't have been a whistle at the end.

Oh, really?

The refs were already giving the benefit of the doubt to the Cavs.

Did I not copy that statement of yours correctly? Please, use the "edit" mode to correct it if there was any misreading or "incomprehension" on my part.

Maybe if the Kings ever had a post presence you would understand watching a game where your big man is called for a touch foul in the lane while constantly trying to shoot with a couple players hanging on him.

We played the Lakers yearly for several seasons in the playoffs. We hacked the hell out of Shaq. What happens to Duncan is hardly in the same league as what we did (and others, including the Spurs) to derail O'Neal. The difference was that Shaq more or less accepted the banging. I guess weetle Timmy and his whiney ref-baiting requires more help.

All of my "whining" as you like to call it is targeted at CONSISTANCY.

 

Lurker, then SOUND LIKE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO!!!

For crying out loud, reread YOUR OWN posts OBJECTIVELY and then come back here and talk about how you are actually arguing for "consistency".

And I don't care if you consistantly call touch fouls or go by the old "no blood, no foul" rule.  Just call the same game on both ends of the court.  Either call it an offensive foul EVERY time the offensive player initiates contact, a no-call, or a defensive foul.  But call it the same for all 10 players on the court.

Non Spurs fans? Non-Cavelier fans?

What is your opinion about how fair the games have been called?

My take, in general, has been that the Spurs get away with more then the Cavs do and provide the majority of uncalled contact.

[JoMal]

To me the difference between the plays was that Parker was already making his move when the contact came.  Whereas Lebron felt contact and then decided to go up for the shot.

That should not matter. That call gets made routinely during the NBA season.

[Lurker]

I'm going to chime in here, because frankly I had the same exact reaction to your post as JoMaL did, Lurker.  You're argument (and subsequent whining about inconsistency) for why the foul was not called on Bruce Bowen doesn't hold any water.  First you state that Bowen's foul was incidental -- lay off the crackpipe.  Bowen intentionally, not incidentally, fouled LeBron:  he intentionally grabbed LeBron around the waste with his arm to make sure the foul was on the floor.  Now you can argue that LeBron noticed this action and THEN went into a shooting motion so the foul would indeed be called on the floor, but you CANNOT argue that the foul was incidental, ticky tack, contact that was a no-call for the consistency of the game.  LeBron got fouled by Bowen, Cleveland Ball on the side was the right call in my book. 

Maybe incidental was the wrong word.  My point was in the context of how the game was called there wasn't enough contact (didn't alter LBJ's motion) enough for the call.  Did Bowen foul him?  I say yes...he intended to foul him.  And I also say that it was on the floor.  I'll go as far to say that if it was 5 minutes earlier in the game James probably would have gotten the call.  But at the same time hoping to have the refs bail you out on a final play has time and again been proven the wrong strategy for winning in the playoffs.

Now as to your comment about Ginobili's offensive foul when Varejao was clearly not set while seemingly the same exact play with LeBron and Bowen was called a Blocking foul -- and you say Van Gundy noticed it.  Danny Crawford explained to Ginobili (and I read his lips and body language) why it was an offensive foul.  It was a charge NOT because Varejao was set but because Ginobili swung his off-arm elbow into Varejao's chest to try and create the contact before the release of the shot.  LeBron James didn't have any swinging motion of his off arm to get the shot off and his defender (Bowen) was not set, thereby -- Blocking foul.

I saw the explanation also...and felt it was just the ref explaining his justification for the call.  Doesn't mean the call was right just means that the ref had a ready explanation.  James on his drive lowers his shoulder.  Both calls probably should have been no-calls.  Or both offensive fouls or both defensive fouls.  But there wasn't enough difference...especially in real time; not slo-mo replays...to differentiate.

Also I believe a missed and1 call went in the Spurs favor.  The one on Tony Parker which was committed by Drew Gooden (2nd or 3rd quarter).  They gave Tony a continuation call and free throws even though he was clearly in the middle of a spin move and hadn't even started attempting the shot--Van Gundy noticed that one, too, so did Mike Breen.  I believe this offset the foul later on in the game commited by Bowen on LeBron in which continuation was wrongly called.  By my count, that makes continuation mistakes 1-1.

That is hard to say.  Gooden grabs Parker's arms as they are going up and he (Tony) had left the floor on one foot.  Maybe he was shooting, maybe not.  But in that instance (unless we are talking different plays which is possible) the refs usually give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player.

The offensive foul on LeBron as he was posting up with 6 min. to go in the 2nd quarter was pure, unabashed, BS.  Much more "questionable" (using your word) as Duncan's offensive foul.  Bowen clearly flopped and had the Refs been calling that type of thing a foul -- Karl Malone wouldn't even rank in the NBA Top 50 in scoring, let alone 2nd all time.  Now then, the Refs realized they had just taken a dump on the court and made the obligatory makeup call on the Duncan foul when Zydrunas went across the middle.  It was a make-up call through and through, and I agree that I absolutely HATE makeup calls, but that's the culture the NBA has fostered ever since I've started watching it.  I think correcting your mistake then and there is better, lead official Crawford should've called a Ref council and overturned the foul on LeBron, until last night's game the Ref's had been good about doing this type of thing.  Still going back to the theme of this post, Cavs and Spurs were even 1-1. 

I agree that Bowen got that flop...but maybe it was a makeup for earlier when James elbowed him in the jaw and got away with it?  Once you start going down the makeup path then the whole game can be a series of make-up calls.

I don't think Cleveland fans have any right to say they were wronged.
I don't think San An fans have any right to say they were wronged. 

Mistakes were made but it was for all purposed called even, sometimes evenly BAD, but even nonetheless.  We know you're a diehard Spurs fan, Lurker, but let's maintain some semblance of objectivity for posterity's sake.  You're up 3-0, I think you can afford to.             

Someone has to balance out the lack of objectivity that is flowing from some corners around here...